AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1/08 dated 23-5-2008 217/08 01/05 to 12/06 5,232/- 5,232/- 2. M/s. Suyash Castings Pvt. Ltd. ADJ/111/KOP-1/2008 dated 28-7-2008 234/08 01/07 to 10/07 15,799/- 10,000/- 3. M/s. Aadi Plastic Industries. ADJ/112/KOP-1/2008 dated 28-7-2008 249/08 12/06 to 03/07 17,764/- 10,000/- 4. M/s. Menon Pistons Rings Pvt. Ltd. ADJ/113/KOP-1/2008 dated 28-7-2008 255/08 01/05 to 06/06 and 01/07 to 11/07 71,495/- 10,000/- 5. M/s. Rathod Industries ADJ/54/KOP-1/07 dated 15-5-08 203/08 03/05 to 09/06 58,847/- 10,000/- 6. M/s. Paranjape Autocast Pvt. Ltd. 55/ADJ/2008 dated 15-4-2008 193/08 04/06 to 07/07 1,19,371/- 30,000/- (hereinafter refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... final products up to the place of removal is eligible as 'input service'; (iii) that the appellants also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vardhaman Special Steels v. CCE - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 374 [2008 (223) E.L.T. 220]; (iv) that in respect of Appeal No. 1 and 2, the appellants also delivered the goods at the port of export and since the goods were delivered only at the port of export, the 'port of export' should be considered as the 'place of removal' in view of the above Board's Circular and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of RSWM Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Delhi); (v) that as regards imposition of penalty, all the appellants claims that since the issue involved is of interp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008 date 30-7-2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Satara, dropping the proceedings initiated against the same appellant on the same issue covering the period subsequent to the period covered under the present appeal. 4. I have gone through the case records including records of PHs and decisions relied upon by all six appellants. As the issue involved in all six appeals is one and the same, I take all six appeals for a common decision. After waiving pre-deposit, I take all appeals for taking decision on the main appeal memorandums. The issue involved in all six appeals are that the appellants cleared their final products from their factory premises to the customers' end and the adjudicating authorities have conclude....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of the clarification issued by the Board and the case law relied upon by the appellants with reference to the 'place of removal'. 4.1 Before coming to the conclusion, first it has to he seen that whether the prices (AV) loaded by the appellants are inclusive of 'freight' in view of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner has concluded that the prices were not inclusive of freight and the appellants did not produce any evidence to prove that the property vests in them till the delivery at the place of customers. In this regard, I have gone through the few purchase orders, invoices and insurance in some cases and observed that the goods were moved on 'FOR' destination to the customer's end. Despite the fact, the Assistant Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because, in terms of sale contract/agreement, (i) the, ownership of goods and the property of goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable conditions to the purchaser at his door steps; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss or damage to the goods during the transit to the destination and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation upto such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce in the instant cases, it is the responsibility of the appellants to deliver the goods at the customers end as per the contract, it can safely be concluded that the property in the goods were transferred only at the customers end and thus, as per the definition of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Board's clarification, the 'place of removal' in the present issue is the 'customers end'. The decision of the CESTAT Delhi in the case of Vardhaman Special Steels v. CCE, Ludhiana - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 374 (Tri.-Delhi) also supports the issue on hand. The relevant portion of the decision contained in para 3 and 4 is reproduced as under :- "3. The dispute is about eligibility of service tax (paid on transport) as Cenvat cred....